Published by National FORUM Journals (Founded 1983) by Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, International Website: www.nationalforum.com

1. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1, 2011
Compulsory School Attendance
Fred C. Lunenburg
Sam Houston State University
________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
Litigation has reached both federal and state courts in the areas of compulsory school
attendance. The courts have sustained compulsory attendance laws on the basis of the
legal doctrine of parens patriae. Under this doctrine, the state has the legal authority to
provide for the welfare of its children. In turn, the welfare of the state is served by the
development of an enlightened citizenry. In this article, I examine the mandate of
compulsory school attendance, home instruction, exemptions to compulsory school
attendance, residency requirements, homeless children, vaccinations, and students with
AIDS.
________________________________________________________________________
Every state has some form of compulsory school attendance law. These laws
generally compel children between specified ages to attend school. Compulsory school
attendance laws may be enforced in the following ways:
 By criminal prosecution of parents for child neglect
 By judicially ordering children to return to school; see In re J.B. v. Missouri
(2001); In re C.S. v. North Dakota (1986); State ex. rel. Estes v. Egnor (1994).
 By court removal of a child from a parent’s custody; see Scoma v. Illinois, (1974);
Matter of McMillan (1976).
 By placing truants in custodial schools; see Re T.V.P. v. Illinois (1974).
The courts have sustained compulsory attendance laws on the basis of the legal
doctrine of parens patriae. Under this doctrine, the state has the legal authority to provide
for the welfare of its children. In turn, the welfare of the state is served by the
development of an enlightened citizenry.
1

2. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
2_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mandate of Compulsory School Attendance
In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the United States Supreme Court affirmed
the mandate of compulsory school attendance. The Court also established the role of
parochial and private schools in satisfying the state’s requirement that children receive
schooling. In essence, this landmark Supreme Court decision affirmed that parents do
not have the right to determine whether their children are educated, but they do have the
right to determine where such education takes place.
Home Instruction
Most state statutes authorize home instruction programs that meet state standards;
see Deconte v. State (1985); In re D.B. v. Colorado (1988); Texas. Education Agency v.
Leeper (1994). However, courts do not agree that home schooling must be equivalent to
public school instruction; see Minnesota v. Newstrom (1985); Mazanec v. N. Judson-San
Pierre School Corporation (1986); Jeffrey v. O’Donnell (1988); Blackwelder v. Safnauer
(1989). Since 1980, many states have changed their laws to ease restrictions on home
instruction, and no state has strengthened such regulations (Butler, 2010; Klicka, 1996).
However, most states require students educated at home to be subjected to state-
prescribed tests to ensure that students are mastering basic skills; see Murphy v, Arkansas
(1988).
Exemptions from Compulsory School Attendance
State laws typically exempt certain classes of children from compulsory school
attendance such as emancipated youngsters (married or self-supporting students),
children who must work to provide essential family support, and children with severe
disabilities. In addition to statutory exemptions from compulsory school attendance laws,
the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) granted an exemption of First
Amendment religious grounds to Amish children who have successfully completed
eighth grade. However, most other religious exemption claims have been denied by the
courts.
Residency Requirements
Each state constitution places an obligation on its legislature to provide for free
public schooling, thus creating a state entitlement (property right) for all children to be
educated at public expense. This state entitlement encompasses all school-age children,
usually between the ages of 6 to 16, who are bona fide residents in that they live in the
attendance district with their parents or legal guardians; are emancipated minors (married
of self-supporting beyond a certain age); or are adult students who live independently
from their parents. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court, in Plyer v. Doe

3. FRED C. LUNENBURG
_________________________________________________________________________________3
(1982), held that school districts could not deny a free public education to resident
children whose parents were illegal aliens.
Homeless Children
Homeless children and state inter-and intra-district open enrollment plans may be
subject to special rules. The federal Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 defines a homeless
person as one who lacks a permanent nighttime residence or one whose residence is a
temporary living arrangement. The law directs each state to adopt a plan for educating
homeless children including transportation and other school services; see Harrison v.
Sobel (1988); G. Cooper Access to Education by Homeless Children (1989).
Some states have enacted inter-district open enrollment plans, which allow
students to apply for transfers to any public school district within the state. Transfer
requests usually are subject to certain restrictions specified in the law, and participation
by local districts may be optional under some plans. Most states now allow for some
type of intra-or inter-district open enrollment plan; see McMorrow v. Benson (2000).
However, courts have rejected parents claims that assignment to inadequate resident
school districts was detrimental to their children’s educational welfare; see Ramsdell v. N.
River School District No. 200 (1985). Such claims may be more successful in the future
in view of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Under this federal legislation,
students assigned to residence schools who have not met annual progress goals for two
consecutive years must be provided other educational options, including transportation
and all other school services.
Vaccinations
In an effort to protect the health and welfare of all students, states have required
students to be vaccinated. The precedents in this area are derived from two U.S. Supreme
Court cases decided about a century ago; see Jacobsen v. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. (1905); Zucht v. King (1922). A more recent case struck down a challenge
to a state’s mandatory vaccination on religious grounds, even though there was no
epidemic imminent; see Board of Education of Mt. Lakes v. Maas (1959). Other courts
have upheld religious exemptions against vaccination when such practices are prohibited
in official church doctrine; see State v. Miday (1965); Maier v. Besser (1972). A
Kentucky federal district court rejected a parent’s attempt to use statutory religious
exemptions merely because he was “philosophically opposed” to immunization; see Kleid
v. Board of Education of Fulton, Kentucky Independent School District (1976).
Students with AIDS
Recent controversy has focused on school attendance of pupils with acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Medical research indicates that AIDS cannot be
transmitted through casual contact; see Rothstein, Children with AIDS (1988). An AIDS-

4. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
4_____________________________________________________________________________________
infected child poses negligible risk for transmission to classmates or to other school
personnel and thus does not threaten their health and safety. Therefore, having AIDS is
not grounds to exclude a child automatically from school. In fact, courts have ruled that
children have a right to attend school, and, barring complications, AIDS does not
diminish that right, provided that the AIDS-infected child is “not a significant health risk”
to others; see Martinez v. School Board of Hillsborough County. (1988); Doe v. Dolton
Elementary School District (1988); Phipps v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District
(1988); Parents of Child v. Coker (1987).
Some states have adopted policies governing school attendance of students with
AIDS, modeled after guidelines issued by the National Centers for Disease Control
(CDC). The CDC stipulates that students with AIDS who are under medical care may
continue regular school attendance unless they have skin eruptions, exhibit inappropriate
behavior such as biting, or are unable to control bodily secretions. The CDC further
suggests that decisions concerning school attendance for AIDS-infected students be made
on a case-by-case basis. Continuing research on the nature and prevention of this dreaded
disease will undoubtedly yield further guidelines for its prevention and control.
Conclusion
Litigation has reached both federal and state courts in the areas of compulsory
school attendance. The courts have sustained compulsory attendance laws on the basis of
the legal doctrine of parens patriae. Under this doctrine, the state has the legal authority
to provide for the welfare of its children. In turn, the welfare of the state is served by the
development of an enlightened citizenry. In this article, I examined the mandate of
compulsory school attendance, home instruction, exemptions to compulsory school
attendance, residency requirements, homeless children, vaccinations, and students with
AIDS.
References
Blackwelder v. Safnauer, 866 F. 2d 548 (2d Cir. 1989).
Bd of Educ. of Mt. Lakes v. Maas, 56 N.J. Super. 245, 152 A 2d 394 (1959).
Butler, C. (2010). Child rights, home schooling, and moral education. West Lafayette,
IN: Purdue University Press.
Deconte v. State, 329 S.E. 2d 636 (N.C. 1985).
Doe v. Dolton Elem. Sch. Dist., 694 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. IL 1988).
G. Cooper Access to Education by Homeless Children, 53 Ed. Law Rep. 757 (1989).
Harrison v. Sobel, 705 F. Supp. 870 (S.D. N.Y. 1988).
Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 11302 (1987).
In C.S., 382 N.W. 2d 381 (N.D. 1986).
In re D.B., 767 P. 2d 801 (Col. Ct. App. 1988).
In re J.B., 58 S.W. 3d 575 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
In re T.V.P., 414 N.E. 2d 209 (Ill. 1974).

5. FRED C. LUNENBURG
_________________________________________________________________________________5
Jacobsen v. Commonwealth of Mass., 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
Jeffrey v. O’Donnell, 702 F. Supp. 516 (M.D. Pa. 1988).
Kleid v. Bd. of Educ. of Fulton, Kentucky Indep. Sch. Dist., 406 F. Supp. 902 (W.D.Ky
1976).
Klicka, C. J. (1986). Home schooling in the United States: A legal analysis. Panconian
Springs, VA: Home School Legal Defense Association.
Maier v. Besser, 341 N.Y.S. 2d 411 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1972).
Martinez v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cty., 861 F. 2d 1502 (11th Cir. 1988).
Matter of McMillan, 226 S.E. 2d 693 (N.C. 1976).
Mazanec v. N. Judson - San Pierre Sch. Corp., 798 F. 2d 230 (7th Cir. 1986).
McMorrow v. Benson, 617 N.W. 2d 247 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Minnesota v. Newstrom, 371 N.W. 2d 525 (Minn. 1985).
Murphy v. Arkansas, 852 F. 2d 1039 (8th Cir. 1988).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6316 (b) (2002).
Parents of Child, Code No. 870901w v. Coker, 676 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. OK 1987).
Phipps v. Saddleback Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 Ca. Rptr. 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Ramsdell v. N. River Sch. Dist. No. 200, 704 P. 2d 606 (Wash. 1985).
Rothstein, Children with AIDS, 12 Nova L. Rev. 1259 (1988).
Scoma v. Ill., 391 F. Supp. 452 (N.D. Ill. 1974).
State ex. Rel. Estes v. Egnor, 443 S.E. 2d 193 (W.Va. 1994).
State v. Miday, 140 S.E. 2d 325 (N.C. 1965).
Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W. 2d 432 (Tex. 1994).
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922).